Israel-Gaza war

[Pres Mike]

What worries me is Nakba 2.0 happening. What happens if fighting gets so intense in southern Gaza that Egypt allows people to flee? 45% of all homes in the Gaza Strip has been destroyed, mostly in the North. If if the same happens in the south, we could be looking at 2.5 million homeless people. It would be the greatest humantarian crisis in 100 years.

Sadly, not. 100 years covers the Second World War, Cambodia and Syria. Among many others.

A mass displacement into Egypt might be the lesser of two evils at this point; better that than staying in the ruins of Gaza.

No. The international community can rebuild Gaza like it did after 2014. That would be faster and more humane than mass tent cities in the Sini Desert without water. Why folks keep arguing for this solution is crazy to me.

All it does it allows Israel to bulldoze cities in the Gaza Strip and build luxury beach homes and illegal settlements.

[Pres Mike]

What worries me is Nakba 2.0 happening. What happens if fighting gets so intense in southern Gaza that Egypt allows people to flee? 45% of all homes in the Gaza Strip has been destroyed, mostly in the North. If if the same happens in the south, we could be looking at 2.5 million homeless people. It would be the greatest humantarian crisis in 100 years.

Sadly, not. 100 years covers the Second World War, Cambodia and Syria. Among many others.

A mass displacement into Egypt might be the lesser of two evils at this point; better that than staying in the ruins of Gaza.

No. The international community can rebuild Gaza like it did after 2014. That would be faster and more humane than mass tent cities in the Sini Desert without water. Why folks keep arguing for this solution is crazy to me.

All it does it allows Israel to bulldoze cities in the Gaza Strip and build luxury beach homes and illegal settlements.

Not tent cities. Getting them somewhere safer. Gaza is in a lot worse state than in 2014. It's going to need demolishing and rebuilding anyway.

Not tent cities? You plan to build housing for 2.5 million over night? Just supplying enough tents might be impossible in the short term.

The Sini is also a DESERT. Belive it or not, Gaza is not a desert. A misconception that people are fighting over sand. In reality, the Gaza Strip and West Bank is the best land in the middle east for settlements.

[Pres Mike]

Nikki Hayley talks about where Palestinian refugees should go.

Hamas Friendly Countries

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1KUqJQr6Jw/

We have this giant Islamic Elephant in the room. Israel occupy about 3% of the Middle East. Every other country surrounding them are Muslim, yet they won't take any of their brothers and sisters at their greatest hour of need, not even sick babies.

Who is helping their Muslim brothers?

I wonder why Jordan and Egypt wont take any Palestinian refugees?

Because it would be the Nakba 2.0

If Egypt allowed the Palestinians to flee Gaza, Israel will never allow them to return. They will keep their land and homes. The Israeli intelligence agency made this very plan after Oct 7. It was a real possibility.

Make no mistake. If Jordan and Egypt allowed it, more than half of the Israeli political spectrum would expel the 6 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip overnight. That includes the current government led by Netanyahu.

[Pres Mike]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And there wouldn't be an Iran five minutes after that.

LOL.

Iran is no match for the United States, but Israel is another story.

I mean, yeah, fundamentally it is unlikely that Israel could beat an Iranian army in the field...but Israel is also a nuclear-armed state, and Iran is not. If Israel's survival came down to beating an Iranian army in the field, then there would just no longer be an Iran. (If 'Samson Option' stuff is true, and Israeli nuclear policy follows US/Soviet Cold War examples, then probably many other countries would also be hit at the same time and also essentially cease to exist, as punishment for failing to stop the war. Both the US and Soviet Union planned to hit neutral countries -- famously Finland would've been annihilated twice over if there were a nuclear war between the 1950s and 1980s).

This is all academic, because if there's one thing this war has taught us it is that the Palestinians keep alienating their allies. Iran didn't intervene in this war, and won't in the next one. (Also not entirely clear where such a conflict would take place).

(Also, "without US help Iran would go through the front door"...literally where and how? They don't border each other and Iranian interventions in Iraq/Syria/everywhere have met with large-scale local resistance.)

There were no US plans to nuke Finland during the Cold War. I googled several sources and none suggest that, although Finland was going to be uninhabitable from fallout coming from Leningrad. In fact Finland had security guarantees from both the US and Soviet Union

[Pres Mike]

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And there wouldn't be an Iran five minutes after that.

LOL.

Iran is no match for the United States, but Israel is another story.

I mean, yeah, fundamentally it is unlikely that Israel could beat an Iranian army in the field...but Israel is also a nuclear-armed state, and Iran is not. If Israel's survival came down to beating an Iranian army in the field, then there would just no longer be an Iran. (If 'Samson Option' stuff is true, and Israeli nuclear policy follows US/Soviet Cold War examples, then probably many other countries would also be hit at the same time and also essentially cease to exist, as punishment for failing to stop the war. Both the US and Soviet Union planned to hit neutral countries -- famously Finland would've been annihilated twice over if there were a nuclear war between the 1950s and 1980s).

This is all academic, because if there's one thing this war has taught us it is that the Palestinians keep alienating their allies. Iran didn't intervene in this war, and won't in the next one. (Also not entirely clear where such a conflict would take place).

(Also, "without US help Iran would go through the front door"...literally where and how? They don't border each other and Iranian interventions in Iraq/Syria/everywhere have met with large-scale local resistance.)

There were no US plans to nuke Finland during the Cold War. I googled several sources and none suggest that, although Finland was going to be uninhabitable from fallout coming from Leningrad. In fact Finland had security guarantees from both the US and Soviet Union

There were absolutely US plans to nuke Finland in the Cold War.

Nuclear targets and targeting principles were closely guarded secrets. U.S. target maps of Finland from the late 1950s show specific target symbols on facilities such as airfields, ports, and bridges. All possible targets comprised the National Strategic Target List (NSTL), while the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP, from 1960 onwards) was a blueprint that specified the value of these targets, the conditions under which they were to be attacked, and the order and priority of targets to be engaged. The Bombing Encyclopedia produced by the United States Air Force and intelligence services was an attempt to list all potential targets anywhere in the world; this document was first created in 1946, and over the years it assumed increasingly massive dimensions, including bombing targets in both “hostile nations” and in neutral countries, such as Finland.

In the bombing charts in 1950's targets were marked with different symbols – in the capital Helsinki and many other places in Finland – such as airfields, harbors, bridges, road junctions, factories, military bases, radio stations and fuel depots30. Even Siikakangas, an abandoned, grassy airfield in central Finland was among the targets. Why? Obviously because the government was just at the time considering moving the main base of the Finnish air force there – far from borders and population centres.31

The Chinese still needed British and American help to remove the Japanese. There is no external military intervention coming that can stop Israeli aircraft from bombing at will.

Without US’s protection, Iran would come right through the front door.

And do what?

Apparently in pppolitics' world, even if Iran could manage to inflict conventional military defeat against Israel in an offensive war, for some reason Iran would have no need to be at all concerned about Israeli nukes.

Maybe pppolitics knows something we don't about that, but I doubt it.

Let's stop pretending that Iran doesn't have nukes.

Literally nobody -- not Iran or its allies or its enemies -- claims Iran has nukes, even though such a claim would be cheap to make. It's a laughable claim.

Also, like, the whole logic of MAD is that having nukes is a poor defense against your enemy having nukes. This wouldn't stop Iran from getting destroyed in a war against Israel.

I don't think you understand. Nuclear weapons are not hard to make.

The reason that not every random country has nuclear weapons is not that those countries don't have smart enough scientists, but because there is a lot of political pressure not to have them (NPT, sanctions, etc.).

If nuclear weapons are not so hard to make, then why don't you have any?

The reality is that nuclear weapons are not impossibly hard to make, even for quite poor countries like North Korea, but they are sufficiently difficult that even developed countries (like 1960s-1970s-era Sweden) have struggled with the task in the past. Iran probably would have them by now if not for active measures on the part of the US and Israel (including economic sanctions, and things like assassinating scientists), but they have clearly been trying for a long time and not succeeded. (Israel, for the record, would probably have never developed them if not for the active cooperation of nuclear-armed 1960s-era France, on top of spying within the United States.)

Let's stop beating around the bushes and say the obvious:

Hamas has won!

Hamas knows that it can't beat Israel militarily, so it baited Israel into committing genocide for the entire world to see.

Israel is now more isolated than ever and every terrorist killed will be replaced with 10 new ones.

Hamas is a victim of their own success. They underestimated the damage they would do on October 7th and had no plan on what would happen afterwards. Now Sinwar is hiding in a tunnel under a refugee camp desperately trying not to get caught. Pretending this is some brilliant tactical coup by the Hamas leadership is such a big brain take that I'm not even sure how to respond.

Hamas isn't primarily fighting for military supremacy. It's fighting for the support of the Arab street. And in that it has been largely successful.

Has it actually? This feels like the most tepid response from the Arab street essentially ever. There are no protests anywhere calling for intervention, which I remember were a thing in the 2006 war, and you have countries semi-openly taking Israel's side (like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain shooting down missiles), not denying that they are taking Israel's side behind the scenes (as with Egypt or Jordan), or particular sides in civil wars just openly taking Israel's side (as with the anti-Houthi STC in Yemen just celebrating Israeli victories).

The odd thing about this war compared to every other war Israel has ever fought is that the response from, like, every part of the world is more favorable than it has ever been. (Might say more about how intensely unfavorable global opinion used to be, but, well, it never made a dent in the actual situation).

In terms of who is the most visible anti Israel actor (a more valuable niche than ever, one with considerable prestige) Hamas has entrenched itself and claimed additional relevance atop that. Anything else is probably secondary to Hamas (well, except maybe the patronage of Iran, which has additional proxies such as PIJ). Opposition to Israel is like water in a storm, it's inevitably going to manifest into something. Hamas itself is just the most recent actor to fill that niche. The public is protesting Western multinationals such as Starbucks instead of directly calling for their countries to join, perhaps something that has gotten more highlighting since the settlements in the West Bank are funded in significant part due to Western money. The general feeling is that boycotts are a tactic that can be relied on to work.

Israel's situation isn't actually that bad short-term on a PR front, despite their manifest incompetence/complacency on this (like seriously, what purpose does yellow stars in the UN serve? What friends do you make by demanding the UN Sec Gen resign?). A lot of people have made fun of the calendar thing and that's the more long-term cost coming into play... If people don't trust you, then they won't listen to what you have to say. Hamas is a far more professional outfit than in the past. It's possible that for Israel, while things are among the best they've been diplomatically in regards to concrete action (the anger is expressed more through words than anything else, at least in the First and Second Worlds), other facets are more against them. It's ironic, maybe. It is what it is.

It will be hard for either side to claim clear-cut victory here. And both sides are inclined to overweight their victories.

I just don't think this is "a more valuable niche than ever" if you have Arab governments and militias turning against the Palestinians, on top of the governments of the US and the European Union and India, and this is cleanly demonstrated by elections in distant lands during this war returning pro-Israel leadership teams in countries which have little reason to care. Iran and Hezbollah not intervening just underscores the point that Israel's friends care about the outcome and the Palestinians' friends don't (...though I remain unconvinced that Hezbollah intervening was actually ever a particularly serious possibility; if Sinwar thought so then he had drunk his own Kool-Aid).

Those aren’t plans to nuke Finland. That is a list of possible targets if the US ever did plan to nuke Finland. The US has war plans for every nation on earth, even Allies

Honestly surprised you responded to my post considering you refused to respond to my other posts that rebuked your arguments with evidence

[Pres Mike]

In terms of two state solution, has anyone thought of dealing separately with Golan Heights, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip as seems would be easier?

Golan Heights: Previously part of Syria but populated mostly by Druze, so not sure they wish to join either Syria or a Palestinian state.  I would not be shocked if put to a referendum, most would vote to join Israel as while not great, at least would probably be treated better than in other two.  Arab Christians 10-15% of Arab population before 1948 while today only 2.5% in West Bank, less than 1% in Gaza while 10% of Arabs in Israel so that suggests Palestine is not great if you are Arab but not Muslim.

East Jerusalem: Dividing the city into two separate countries is totally unrealistic.  Only feasible if they have open borders like EU does, but fat chance either side would agree to that.  Having it jointly controlled or international community agreeing to recognize it as part of Israel on condition all Palestinians living there given automatic Israeli citizenship (today they are not offered such) and no more evictions from land, any Israeli settlements have to be purchased in a fair market transaction seems more realistic.

West Bank: Unlike Gaza, you have almost 500,000 settlers and dismantling all Israeli settlements is not feasible.  At same time West Bank is in somewhat better shape economically than Gaza so if its own state could work or at least better chance than Gaza.  Main thing would be making it contiguous and dismantling settlements that obstruct that or perhaps even doing land swaps as majority of settlements near Green line while many Arab villages in Israel near Green line so swapping two could work while dismantling settlements deep into West Bank.  Other is a freeze and ban any Israelis from moving to settlements while requiring all children born there to leave once reach adulthood but at same time let adults living there remain there thus would disappear once they die off.  Never mind Israel doesn't trust Palestinians and since highest points on Ridge are in West Bank, legitimate worry if transferred to Palestinian state it would be easy to launch an attack on Israel as many won't accept a Palestinian state; they want Israel wiped off the map. 

Gaza Strip: Doesn't have the settlement issue like West Bank, but is a lot poorer and could easily become a failed state.  I can see how Israel might prefer two to be separate.  Best option here would be transferring Gaza to Egypt but zero chance that happens as Egypt doesn't want them as high cost and fears more terrorism.

As a Palestinian American, I know dividing Jerusalem is never going to happen. The best thing would give custodianship of the Al Aqsa Mosque to Palestine and allowing free movement of Palestinian citizens to travel and pray there (its only an hour drive from Ramallah). Right now the royal family of Jordan has custodianship.

Thats basically what was offered in 2001 and 2008 but was turned down. While Abbas knew that was the best deal, its a very bitter pill for the Palestinian people to not have full control of the third most holy place in Islam.

I also acknowlege that Israel will never allow millions of Palestinian refugees to return. The best solution would be allow some to move to an indepedent Palestine and the rest given citizenship in the countries they live in. Jordan has done that for decades but nations like Syria and Lebanon still treat the millions of Palestinian refugees as a problem that will eventually disappear.

[Pres Mike]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

Not to get into a theologian debate, but Jesus is also a beloved prophet in Islam

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

Almost like it's all nonsense, right?

How about we don't insult each other's religious beliefs? This thread is duscussing a modern geopolitical conflict. Not religion. Despite many ignorant people thinking the Israeli-Arab conflict is about religion, surely the average poster here is intellgient enough to know it isn't

[Pres Mike]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

If the Palestinians had an Anwar Sadat who would recognize Israel on its 1967 borders under the condition that Israel withdraw from the West Bank (at least all settlements far from the Israel/West Bank border that could not be part of a viable land swap), I think Israel would face significant pressure from the US, NATO countries AND many liberal Jews. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fund a Palestinian state. Of course this is easier with both Hamas and Netanyahu out of the picture.

But this is how the Palestinians get comfy lives and good jobs, not the pipe dream of 1948 borders.

What are you talking about? This is exactly what the Palestinians want, a state with 1967 borders and for the illegal Israeli settlements to leave.

Israel and Palestine agreed to this in 1993. Well to be exact, they agreeded that a future Palestinian state would be part of 1967 borders. Palestine expected all of 1967, Israel said the future Palestinian state would be INSIDE the 1967 borders. In peace talks that occured in 2001, 2005 and 2008, Israel offered peace plans that offered Palestine 50-75% of the West Bank.

The best offer was in 2008. Olmert offered 97% of the West Bank. Abbas nearly accepted but took too long. Abbas has since shared regret on not taking the deal. Than Olmert was arrested on corruption charges. Which I find very suspicious to be honest. The best chance for peace ever and the Israeli PM is charged for corruption at the same time...

[Pres Mike]

Not sure if this was already posted.

While support for the Palestinians is still quite low, only 39% of Americans say they side with Israel. Ukraine is still very popular.

https://twitter.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1742606406765756778?t=86PQQRZXBV9C7QX6t...

I think its a good thing that a solid majority (55%) of Democrats either sympathize more with the Palestinians or equal. Another 20% unsure. For total Americans, its about 40% with 20% unsure

I think once Gen Z starts voting in mass and the American public gets fully educated on the issue, we might get a South Africa situation. Sanctions on Israel might no longer be taboo, to pressure for a two state solution.

No one can deny, the tide is turning when it comes to public opinion. Compare this poll to 10 years ago. Not even Vosem

[Pres Mike]

Not sure if this was already posted.

While support for the Palestinians is still quite low, only 39% of Americans say they side with Israel. Ukraine is still very popular.

https://twitter.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1742606406765756778?t=86PQQRZXBV9C7QX6t...

I think its a good thing that a solid majority (55%) of Democrats either sympathize more with the Palestinians or equal. Another 20% unsure. For total Americans, its about 40% with 20% unsure

I think once Gen Z starts voting in mass and the American public gets fully educated on the issue, we might get a South Africa situation. Sanctions on Israel might no longer be taboo, to pressure for a two state solution.

No one can deny, the tide is turning when it comes to public opinion. Compare this poll to 10 years ago. Not even Vosem

Let's hope so, because based on the responses for this community generally, i don't have good hopes on it.

But i've said, i trust the average US Democrat more on this than the average forum user.

This forum is really unrepresentative of the American public in some ways. Not to derail the thread, but trans issues is a big one

[Pres Mike]

Not sure if this was already posted.

While support for the Palestinians is still quite low, only 39% of Americans say they side with Israel. Ukraine is still very popular.

https://twitter.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1742606406765756778?t=86PQQRZXBV9C7QX6t...

I think its a good thing that a solid majority (55%) of Democrats either sympathize more with the Palestinians or equal. Another 20% unsure. For total Americans, its about 40% with 20% unsure

I think once Gen Z starts voting in mass and the American public gets fully educated on the issue, we might get a South Africa situation. Sanctions on Israel might no longer be taboo, to pressure for a two state solution.

No one can deny, the tide is turning when it comes to public opinion. Compare this poll to 10 years ago. Not even Vosem

Love that you're leaving out the ugly part about that.

GenZ, for all the hype about being the first generation "immune to propaganda" is in fact the most indoctrinated out of any generation in the US ever. This isn't just because of TikTok, but demographics mean that these people will be in charge of our political system, universities, and corporations.

The people I grew up with don't deserve to be homeless because nobody will hire Jewish people. Their kids don't deserve to be rejected from colleges anyone else would get into because they are Jewish.

That's what America is headed towards.

No, we are not. Gen Z is the most welcoming and accepting generation in history. They were the first to turn on Kanye West for example.

I'm a 24 year old Muslim-American teacher. I teach in a poor area in the deep(ish) south. I am shocked how tolerant my students are compared to just 10 years ago and especially 20 years ago.

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2004, and this was followed by the establishment of a proto-state which held Israel's destruction as its top priority. A withdrawal from the West Bank has become much less likely, since the prospect of a war like the current one happening in a place with a much greater population is a rather terrifying one; and even if a Palestinian government did sign something like the Annapolis government, they could not guarantee that they would not be replaced by something similar to Hamas unless sympathies to Hamas truly become fringe or nonexistent.

That means a very different Palestinian society than the one that exists now. (Going back to the polls OSR cited, it means one where those attitudes become nonexistent.) It means one which is actually not anti-Zionist -- one where the current ongoing war is remembered as a conflict in which Israel was justified, for instance, and where there is popular revulsion at punishments for selling land to the wrong ethnicity.

I don't think we're close to that Palestine coming into existence, and I don't think we'll even start moving in that direction until the international Palestinian movement -- especially at the UN -- is disestablished. I don't think there's an alternative to just continuing the occupation until that happens.

(My context is that I am a Jewish first-generation Russian-American, and I grew up in an ethnic enclave where poor little old ladies would pay markups for produce which allegedly came from Israeli settlements. More than that, though, my ideological perspective is that settler societies like Israel and the United States are simply better for humanity in many ways, and in the future there should be many more societies like this.)

You prevent a resurgent Hamas by banning political parties that promote violence. Israel and several European nations do so, its not undemocratic. Having elections with multiple parties dampers that kind of thing.

Another thing that allowed Hamas to take over Gaza was the lack of a highway connecting Gaza and the West Bank. PA forces loyal to Abbas had no way of traveling to Gaza to restore order. Israel can't fly them in, because PA forces can't be seen working side by side the IDF.

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

I have to agree. Plainly, in a lasting peace, no one side is getting everything it wants. You know it's a good compromise if someone is unhappy with it. Zionism is the founding principle of Israel, Palestinians are shooting too high if they're seeking to force Jews to give it up wholesale. Ben Gvir or Smotrich style Zionism is off the table, but that doesn't mean that it's fair, or just, to force Israelis to just gove it up completely.
The Palestinian obsession with Mandatory Palestine is the function of them having nothing else to work towards. We saw signs of compromise until Barak left, after that it just went completely downhill and we ended up where we were now.

I don't get the obsession with folks on this forum about forcing Palestinians to be anti-Zionist? Thats like asking Native Americans to stop being anti "white take our land".

Palestinians are never going to be ok with European Jews coming in the 1930s-1940s and settling in Mandatory Palestine. Native Americans are never going to be ok with being forced form their land onto reservations.

But hard feelings doesn't stop people from accepting things and working towards improving their situation

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

I have to agree. Plainly, in a lasting peace, no one side is getting everything it wants. You know it's a good compromise if someone is unhappy with it. Zionism is the founding principle of Israel, Palestinians are shooting too high if they're seeking to force Jews to give it up wholesale. Ben Gvir or Smotrich style Zionism is off the table, but that doesn't mean that it's fair, or just, to force Israelis to just gove it up completely.
The Palestinian obsession with Mandatory Palestine is the function of them having nothing else to work towards. We saw signs of compromise until Barak left, after that it just went completely downhill and we ended up where we were now.

I don't get the obsession with folks on this forum about forcing Palestinians to be anti-Zionist? Thats like asking Native Americans to stop being anti "white take our land".

Palestinians are never going to be ok with European Jews coming in the 1930s-1940s and settling in Mandatory Palestine. Native Americans are never going to be ok with being forced form their land onto reservations.

But hard feelings doesn't stop people from accepting things and working towards improving their situation

But I think this pretty substantially did happen, right? There is no mass Native American movement which seeks to reverse the immigration waves that set up contemporary American society. Native Americans serve in huge numbers in the military, even though it exists to defend the society that the immigration waves created.

This does not mean that their culture was erased or anything; reservations exist* and there are efforts to preserve Native American languages and strengthen communities and traditions. But these are compatible with 1776.

*Though I am kind of uncomfortable with the idea of special privileges for 'indigeneity', the existence of reservations is not a very controversial or huge part of American life, so I'm fine with them. I think if we should have something like this it shouldn't strictly be limited to Native Americans, so I think in a weird way efforts towards recognition of multiracial peoples, like the Lumbee, is probably a step in the right direction, since it would emphasize that protections for Native Americans exist because we inherently value their culture, not because they are indigenous and so deserve special protection.

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2004, and this was followed by the establishment of a proto-state which held Israel's destruction as its top priority. A withdrawal from the West Bank has become much less likely, since the prospect of a war like the current one happening in a place with a much greater population is a rather terrifying one; and even if a Palestinian government did sign something like the Annapolis government, they could not guarantee that they would not be replaced by something similar to Hamas unless sympathies to Hamas truly become fringe or nonexistent.

That means a very different Palestinian society than the one that exists now. (Going back to the polls OSR cited, it means one where those attitudes become nonexistent.) It means one which is actually not anti-Zionist -- one where the current ongoing war is remembered as a conflict in which Israel was justified, for instance, and where there is popular revulsion at punishments for selling land to the wrong ethnicity.

I don't think we're close to that Palestine coming into existence, and I don't think we'll even start moving in that direction until the international Palestinian movement -- especially at the UN -- is disestablished. I don't think there's an alternative to just continuing the occupation until that happens.

(My context is that I am a Jewish first-generation Russian-American, and I grew up in an ethnic enclave where poor little old ladies would pay markups for produce which allegedly came from Israeli settlements. More than that, though, my ideological perspective is that settler societies like Israel and the United States are simply better for humanity in many ways, and in the future there should be many more societies like this.)

You prevent a resurgent Hamas by banning political parties that promote violence. Israel and several European nations do so, its not undemocratic. Having elections with multiple parties dampers that kind of thing.

Another thing that allowed Hamas to take over Gaza was the lack of a highway connecting Gaza and the West Bank. PA forces loyal to Abbas had no way of traveling to Gaza to restore order. Israel can't fly them in, because PA forces can't be seen working side by side the IDF.

I don't think this works very well where those parties have substantial support among the public and even a modicum of free speech exists. Israel attempted to enforce this after it passed a law purporting to ban Kach and the PFLP in 1988, but in a society where you have free speech it's just very difficult to maintain these bans, and ultimately Otzma and Balad -- the descendants of those organizations -- still exist and have representation in the Knesset. Similarly, Spain has attempted to maintain a ban on the ezker abertzalea, but in a context where like a third of Basque society supports them and any free speech rights exist, this is not sustainable.

I agree that Israel enforcing its ban on parties that advocate violence would be a step in the right direction. Hopefully a Gantz-led government with an empowered Supreme Court will actually do this, though I don't think it's guaranteed by any means.

as an argument against Israel, rather than an argument against Hamas,
you are rewarding Hamas for being evil.
You are rewarding Hamas for committing these war crimes.
You are rewarding Hamas for intentionally putting their own civilians in harm's way.
You, useful idiot, are making yourself a pawn in Hamas's strategy to intentionally -- and illegally -- inflict death and misery on the Palestinians they govern.

That's effectively gaslighting.

Israel is killing 'thousands of children' in its attacks. That's not something that really anyone disputes. Bombs are actively launched, actively land and actively kill. Decisions made that restrict aid, supplies etc are active decisions.

It would be more honest to accept this fact and then moralise/justify it than effectively blame the victims. Or shame those who are aghast at what is happening by suggesting they don't have agency in their anger or empathy.

There isn't shame in doing something when one has no agency. I would shame those who are aghast at what is happening for failing to understand that rewarding militants for using human shields will make every future war everywhere have a much higher civilian casualty count, as there will be a race to the bottom among militants to make attacking them as costly in lives as possible to eke out an advantage in Western media coverage. This is the most striking reason (though not the only one) that it is in the entire world's interests that Israel crush the Gazan regime, and why I've remarked that instead of protesting that Israel is bombing Gaza, people should be protesting that there are 192 non-Israel countries which are not bombing Gaza.

1. The difference here is that Native Americans are full citizens of the United States. They were granted the right to vote in 1870 (although several states made it hard until the Civil Rights Bill)

I would argue that Israel annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip and giving full citizenship to all Palestinians would be the best thing to happen if one wants "Palestine". There is roughly equal number of Arabs and Jews between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Arabs have higher birthrates. So you would have a Arab majority state in a decade or two.

2. Yes, Hamas would need to be banned in a future Palestinian state. And yes, an another political party would take its place. Like in Israel, it would need to change its public views to not be banned while still being nasty. But it gives the nasty people someone to vote for, not fight for.

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Congrats on crafting a proposal both Horus and I are fine with.  That’s a genuinely impressive achievement!

Yes I agree I would see this as a tremendous development towards world peace if this were to happen, and I think most Israelis would be fine with this; however, the Palestinians would never accept it.

One thing I see as a sticking point is simply that a central Palestinian government would not have the strength necessary to actually suppress violent organizations in practice.  Therefore such violent organizations would continue to proliferate and launch attacks on Israel.  Frankly I don't even see how a unified, independent Palestine would get Hamas out of Gaza.  Therefore they would have to endure whatever the ramifications were for failing clause 9 of the treaty, which would likely include Israeli military operations inside Palestine to fight those violent groups.  And things would spiral out of control from there.

Maybe it could succeed if a UN peacekeeping operation was permanently stationed in Palestine to help with enforcement of clause 9, at least for the first few decades?

Yes, there would need to be UN troops to enforce clause 9. But I truly think support for Hamas would disappear if Palestine became an independent state and living standards were raised.

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Congrats on crafting a proposal both Horus and I are fine with.  That’s a genuinely impressive achievement!

No problem!

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Sounds good to me, although I’d even be fine with giving Palestinians East Jerusalem altogether to make things cleaner

Giving East Jerusalem to Palestine is the best option, but a nonstarter for any Israeli government. Thats why so making potenial peace deals have died in the past.

If any Palestinian leader let go of East Jerusalem, he would be overthrown. Hence Abbas being very hestitant to accept the 2008 deal, despite him very much wanting to do so.

My thing is, if Palestine can operate its government in East Jerusalem, control the Al Aqsa mosque and give citizenship to Arab residents of East Jerusalem allowing family reunification, that the crux of the issue while allowing Israel to continue to have a united Jerusalem as its capitol

[Pres Mike]

To those who keep repeating the racist and ignorant statements of "Why can't the Palestinians live in the Sinai" or "Just trade one desert for another" or "The UN will build (tent) cities for them"

Gaza is HABITABLE. Gaza is not a desert. Sinai is a DESERT. IT HAS NO WATER.

[Pres Mike]

What worries me is Nakba 2.0 happening. What happens if fighting gets so intense in southern Gaza that Egypt allows people to flee? 45% of all homes in the Gaza Strip has been destroyed, mostly in the North. If if the same happens in the south, we could be looking at 2.5 million homeless people. It would be the greatest humantarian crisis in 100 years.

Sadly, not. 100 years covers the Second World War, Cambodia and Syria. Among many others.

A mass displacement into Egypt might be the lesser of two evils at this point; better that than staying in the ruins of Gaza.

No. The international community can rebuild Gaza like it did after 2014. That would be faster and more humane than mass tent cities in the Sini Desert without water. Why folks keep arguing for this solution is crazy to me.

All it does it allows Israel to bulldoze cities in the Gaza Strip and build luxury beach homes and illegal settlements.

Not tent cities. Getting them somewhere safer. Gaza is in a lot worse state than in 2014. It's going to need demolishing and rebuilding anyway.

I keep thinking about this super ignorant post. You want to move 2.5 million Palestinians to the Sinai Desert. How do you expect them to live and prosper? Gaza is not a desert, contrary to popular belief.

[Pres Mike]

I already made this point, but just because a city has been destroyed doesn't mean its permanently unliveable. It gets rebuilt and its residents return to their homes. For example, 90% of Warsaw was levelled to the ground in 1944 and the residents that hadn't already been killed were expelled. After the war though, the city was completely rebuilt and is now a prosperous cultural and commercial European city. Even the Old Town that was destroyed was reconstructed and looks impressively authentic.

Yeah but @Silent Hunter insisted the people of Gaza would rather live their homes forever and live in the Sinai Desert. According to him, the international community would build world class cities for them which would be faster than rebuilding Gaza.

[Pres Mike]

I already made this point, but just because a city has been destroyed doesn't mean its permanently unliveable. It gets rebuilt and its residents return to their homes. For example, 90% of Warsaw was levelled to the ground in 1944 and the residents that hadn't already been killed were expelled. After the war though, the city was completely rebuilt and is now a prosperous cultural and commercial European city. Even the Old Town that was destroyed was reconstructed and looks impressively authentic.

Yeah but @Silent Hunter insisted the people of Gaza would rather live their homes forever and live in the Sinai Desert. According to him, the international community would build world class cities for them which would be faster than rebuilding Gaza.

I never said that. What I said was that some Gazans might need to temporarily live in other locations if their home areas are uninhabitable, because that's a better alternative then dying.

The rebuilding of Warsaw took years, I believe. Certainly many cities had bomb sites still present into the 1960s.

I distinctly remember you saying
-Building settlements in Sinai wouldn't take any longer than rebuilding Gaza
-These settlements wouldn't be tent cities
-A significant portion of Gaza residents would rather leave Gaza forever and start over in the Sinai

[Pres Mike]

What worries me is Nakba 2.0 happening. What happens if fighting gets so intense in southern Gaza that Egypt allows people to flee? 45% of all homes in the Gaza Strip has been destroyed, mostly in the North. If if the same happens in the south, we could be looking at 2.5 million homeless people. It would be the greatest humantarian crisis in 100 years.

Sadly, not. 100 years covers the Second World War, Cambodia and Syria. Among many others.

A mass displacement into Egypt might be the lesser of two evils at this point; better that than staying in the ruins of Gaza.

No. The international community can rebuild Gaza like it did after 2014. That would be faster and more humane than mass tent cities in the Sini Desert without water. Why folks keep arguing for this solution is crazy to me.

All it does it allows Israel to bulldoze cities in the Gaza Strip and build luxury beach homes and illegal settlements.

Not tent cities. Getting them somewhere safer. Gaza is in a lot worse state than in 2014. It's going to need demolishing and rebuilding anyway.

[Pres Mike]

What worries me is Nakba 2.0 happening. What happens if fighting gets so intense in southern Gaza that Egypt allows people to flee? 45% of all homes in the Gaza Strip has been destroyed, mostly in the North. If if the same happens in the south, we could be looking at 2.5 million homeless people. It would be the greatest humantarian crisis in 100 years.

Sadly, not. 100 years covers the Second World War, Cambodia and Syria. Among many others.

A mass displacement into Egypt might be the lesser of two evils at this point; better that than staying in the ruins of Gaza.

[Pres Mike]

Now that I presented a map showing Sinai is a desert and Gaza is not, does anyone still support expelling 2.5 million Palestinians from Gaza? Or think the Palestinians would want that?

I notice @Silent Hunter never responded me reposting his own posts despite now claiming he did not hold that position a while back